I hate to break it to you but bisexuals can marry right now. You do understand that someone who is bisexual is attracted to both sexes I hope. That
means a bisexual man can indeed marry either a straight woman or a bisexual woman. And vice versa.

Judge Walker's ruling will not change the number of people one can be married to at the same time. Why in the world would you think it would? It is
not about poly marriage, but rather granting equal rights to ALL citizens of the US.

Last I heard Polygamy was illegal in all 50 states. So the answer to all your questions that people usually ask when they are against gay marriage is
no. en.wikipedia.org...

The answer is "no" right up until someone challenges THOSE laws in court and gets a sympathetic judge to declare them unconstitutional.

The very definition of a "slippery slope" and the law of unintended consequences.

Notice how no proponents of gay marriage are answering any of these posts?

Possible reasons:

1 - they know the posts are correct and are in favor of these interpretations, but don't want to publicly say that.
2 - gay marriage is legal. They got what they wanted and (selfishly and shortsightedly) don't care about what happens next.

Perhaps, it would require a judge to declare such unconstitutional, but the person bringing up the lawsuit, would have to bring evidence to prove not
only that those desiring a home where there is multiple people married to each other, the reasons why, and explain why the prior ruling on the matter
made by a prior court is invalid and in error.
There are 2 things about the entire prop 8 decision that is interesting. One is that the judge asked 3 very specific questions, and the other
interesting thing in the court records, is that those who were defending propostion 8 in favor of it, a majority of their witnesses did not even show
up for the court case or testify to defend the very law they worked hard to get on the books.

a majority of their witnesses did not even show up for the court case or testify to defend the very law they worked hard to get on the books.

Californians I've talked to said that they knew the judge is openly gay. It wasn't rocket science to figure how the judge would rule. They shrugged
their shoulders and said to let the case go to the Supreme Court.

Obama's got a problem if California legalizes gay marriage and marijuana. That means America will have fifty different laws governing gay marriage
and marijuana.

That means America can have fifty different laws governing immigration reform.

What is one state's right is another state's right not to be their state's right.

Last I heard Polygamy was illegal in all 50 states. So the answer to all your questions that people usually ask when they are against gay marriage is
no. en.wikipedia.org...

The answer is "no" right up until someone challenges THOSE laws in court and gets a sympathetic judge to declare them unconstitutional.

The very definition of a "slippery slope" and the law of unintended consequences.

Notice how no proponents of gay marriage are answering any of these posts?

Possible reasons:

1 - they know the posts are correct and are in favor of these interpretations, but don't want to publicly say that.
2 - gay marriage is legal. They got what they wanted and (selfishly and shortsightedly) don't care about what happens next.

I'm guessing it's #2.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by centurion1211]

At that point, the fight will be whether polygamy being against the law should or shouldn't be. It would have nothing more to do with gay marriage
then it would with heterosexual marriage.

Last I heard Polygamy was illegal in all 50 states. So the answer to all your questions that people usually ask when they are against gay marriage is
no. en.wikipedia.org...

The answer is "no" right up until someone challenges THOSE laws in court and gets a sympathetic judge to declare them unconstitutional.

The very definition of a "slippery slope" and the law of unintended consequences.

Notice how no proponents of gay marriage are answering any of these posts?

Possible reasons:

1 - they know the posts are correct and are in favor of these interpretations, but don't want to publicly say that.
2 - gay marriage is legal. They got what they wanted and (selfishly and shortsightedly) don't care about what happens next.

I'm guessing it's #2.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by centurion1211]

At that point, the fight will be whether polygamy being against the law should or shouldn't be. It would have nothing more to do with gay marriage
then it would with heterosexual marriage.

So I was correct about it being choice #2.

And so the civil rights cases over racial discrimination also had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. Oh wait! I thought that's what gay
marriage proponents used to help justify their position. Hmmm.

The fact is that this decision is what opens up the other possibilities because it basically says anything goes if you challenge it in court and get a
sympathetic judge.

The fact I was pointing out with my last post was that gay marriage and polygamy have NOTHING to do with each other. If people want to fight to try
and get polygamy legalized thats thier prerogative, but I guarantee you that there would be far more heterosexual people lobbying to get it all
legalized. Gay marriage is a no brainer situation though, just like women being able to vote, and minorities not having to ride at the back of the
bus.

The topics of gay marriage and marijuana legalizaton and the state's right to regulate their own arms' industry and the state's right to determine
illegal immigration laws and a whole host of topics all come under the heading of the Tenth Amendment.

For those of you who don't know what the Tenth Amendment is, or what it means to Nullify Illegal Federal Laws, it's easy enough to look up. Just
google in the Tenth Amendment Center, etc.

Yes, and look up the many legal definitions of the commerce clause.

If California can pass a law on either gay marriage or marijuan legalization, state laws that contradict the federal law, then the door is open to
legal litigation as to what each state has as a right under the Tenth Amendment.

This has nothing to do with judging gays or bisexuals or transsexuals or pot users, per se. The questions are to what extent each state has a legal
claim under the Tenth Amendment.

It's a state's rights' issue. Not a summary judgement on one's sexual preference or the drugs one uses.

I am certainly not obsessed with your sexual preferences or anything else other than what pertains to the Tenth Amendment.

Hmmm. By your title or the OP it is not clear that the purpose of this debate is in regards to the tenth amendment. If you are so concerned about
State rights why ask the non sense about polygamy and not just make the OP straight to the point?

Futhermore I went through your recent post and it seems this, out of all the examples of the usurpation of state rights, is the only one that concerns
you. Why this one? Out of all the alarming examples available why are you focused on one of the more benign?

It seems you could careless about "State rights" and more about controlling those around you.

Hmmm. By your title or the OP it is not clear that the purpose of this debate is in regards to the tenth amendment. If you are so concerned about
State rights why ask the non sense about polygamy and not just make the OP straight to the point?

Ya know, a conservative could explain the Tenth Amendment to a liberal all day long....and you might as well be reading Melville's Moby Dick out
loud.

Liberals seem not to have a clue about metaphors or analogies or the Constitution.

My advice, don't worry about it. You are a liberal. You don't believe in the Tenth Amendment. When I talk about the Tenth Amendment or the National
Nullification of Unfair Federal Laws, I'm not talking to liberals.

Why is it that liberals think that a conservative is always talking to them?

Read stuff posted by other liberals. You will be a happier camper for the effort. That's just constructive advice. Other than that, do what you want.
After all, you are a liberal. You don't want any laws of any kind. Or if you do want a law, it is a law that outlaws all the other laws.

Gay marriage doesn't mean people can "get married according to their desires" it merely means that gay people now have equal rights with other
couples. It does not change laws on polygamy.

That being said, however, I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy if the parties involved all consent. So if a push toward polygamy did follow
from the push for Gay marriage (I don't see why it would though) I would be all for it.

If you were an attorney or some other legal expert...which you aren't.....but if you walked into a court with this argument to support whatever it is
you are trying to defend, you'd be thrown out of the court room.

What makes you think a legal precedence is predicated on your personal sexual preferences....because it doesn't. Nobody cares what you feel about gay
marriage or polygamy or bestiality or whatever. The important factors are the legal precdences involved.

Last I heard, gay marriage is still not legally binding in the state of California. The whole issue is under review.

What makes you think a legal precedence is predicated on your personal sexual preferences...

It isn't and I never said it was.

Gay couples just want to be equal in the eyes of the law with straight couples. The fact that there are people trying to deny them equal rights is
WRONG, regardless of legal precedence. You know in legal precedence racial segregation was legal too, that didn't make it right.

This has relevance HOW, exactly? Way to muddy up your own topic, and assertion, with cloudy non-sequitors..... :shk:

This, regarding the ruling on Prop 8, doesn't seem to get enough attention:

But what you didn't hear from the political left and mainstream media is that U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker was appointed by a
Republican president and that the lawyer, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who successfully argued the case on behalf of gays and
lesbians, is a Republican.

I mention that, because A) Didn't know it myself, and, B) The major hue and cry on this seems to stem mostly from the extreme far-right
ideologues...really, the fringes.

But, back to the Tenth Amendment....it is STILL a U.S. Constitutional matter. The Tenth doesn't allow every State to adopt measures, even IF by
"popular vote", that ultimately violate the overall intent of the Constitution!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.